Jenny Bourne: Expert on Enslavement

She Perpetuated the Lie of “Natural Increase.”

Dear Jenny,

I probably should apologize for singling you out regarding your ignorance about slavery. Many others including historians, educators like yourself, and the misled, help perpetuate false narratives involving slavery. Most of the history books on the subject don’t name names. Online journals I pored through like USHistory.org, MSU.edu, and others failed to note one of the most inhumane aspects of slavery. Putting out statements like this:

“In the North American colonies, a different situation existed wherein the slave population primarily increased due to the “natural increase” of slave reproduction.” — MSU.edu

You could be forgiven for accepting statements like that and repeating them. It’s very likely that in all your research and study to become a Ph.D. in Economics from the prestigious University of Chicago, that the only reference to slave breeding was repeated denials that such a thing existed. I have a B.A. in Economics from Fisk University where I came across nothing about slave breeding either. But I don’t list among my teaching and research interests; The Economics of Race. If I did, I’d make certain I wasn’t spreading a false narrative when writing for a journal owned and operated by the Economic History Association; (EH.net), where you wrote:

“How did the U.S. slave population increase nearly fourfold between 1810 and 1860, given the demise of the trans-Atlantic trade? They enjoyed an exceptional rate of natural increase. Unlike elsewhere in the New World, the South did not require constant infusions of immigrant slaves to keep its slave population intact.”

I submit to you Jenny, that “natural increase” should be replaced by “slave breeding” as the appropriate term. There was very little natural about the situation which a realistic telling of history would show.

You spoke of “the demise of the trans-Atlantic trade” as if it were an economic anomaly otherwise unexplainable. The beginnings of that demise can be traced back to the Constitution of the United States where the framers inserted a clause forbidding the import of slaves in 1808, (Article 1; Section 9). Technically importing slaves had to continue until at least 1808 when it would take legislation to end it at that time.

That was a compromise promoted by one of the largest Virginia slaveholders (Thomas Jefferson) which allowed the have-not states like South Carolina which imported the most slaves, twenty years to get their act together before the government pulled the plug. This had nothing to do with outlawing slavery which didn’t occur for another fifty years. It just meant that the US literally had to grow its own. Jefferson was actually President when 1808 came around. He wasted no time and got the legislation passed in 1807.

The need for slaves was high, particularly with the invention of the cotton gin which meant more cotton plantations and the gradual move of sugar plantations from the Caribbean after that little revolt in Saint Domingue (Haiti) led by Toussant Louverture. France got scared and begged the US to take “Louisiana” off their hands which further increased the need for slaves as America spread westward. Led by Virginia and Maryland, slavers upped production to the max. Selling them South and West as soon as they were big enough to be productive.

Being an Economist, Jenny, you’d likely point out that farmers couldn’t sustain a model where all their slaves did was produce babies and you would be correct. The slaves did all their regular work in the tobacco fields and elsewhere until such time as manual labor became impossible. In addition to working the fields, slaves were sold or loaned out to the railroads to complete the rail system connecting the South. It was dangerous work often involving explosives, so the slaves were insured by the railroads to protect themselves. Before the railroads were complete; slaves literally walked to many of their destinations, chained together in “coffles;” another term you may not have come across.

When I say there was nothing “natural” about the childbearing process. I mean that often the pairings of couples were dictated by the master; pairing the largest, strongest, “bucks”, with the sturdy female “breeders.” If that sounds a lot like the Eugenics the Nazis looked into, you’d be right once again. There was an exception in that the masters, or any white male family member or friend; would be allowed to rape the female slave without recourse. Provided the master gave them permission. That finding was included in the law that changed the existing British code where children followed the father’s family line and now followed the mothers. This kept those fathers from being responsible for their offspring and made all those tan children slaves from birth. That new law was Partus Sequitur Ventrem.

It was pointed out to me that I didn’t spend enough time discussing white masters, friends, and family; raping female slaves which accounted for a sizable percentage of the so-called “natural increase.” Although Partus Sequitur Ventrem ensured these children would also be slaves. Their generally lighter skin made them prized for housework like butlers, maids, and servers. Female slaves were often described as “fancy’s” meaning they were suitable for sexual relationships. Lest you consider these consensual relationships. The penalty for refusal might be being sold off or even death.

Now, Jenny, you may be asking yourself why I’m bringing all this to your attention? If any of this has aroused your intellectual curiosity, I’d like you to do a little research on slave breeding and make corrections or addendums to your writings that you have neglected to mention. You undoubtedly have better access to historical and statistical data than I. If I’ve erred in my meager writings I would appreciate any corrections you might offer. After all, truth is the goal, is it not? Again I apologize for seemingly (okay actually) singling you out. I never had a name before to associate with the misinformation.

Note: The cover photo is not the actual Jenny Bourne whose photo I do not have the right to use.